tmelm

Incredibly cool. What a write-up. What an engineer.

Inspecting the source confirms your suspicions. My guess is 15 minutes.

What you're describing is my main concern of how this AI development might turn out. If we get any sort of autonomous agent (conscious or not) that can replace human workers in massive scale, there is currently no government or other institution prepared or willing to make sure that the people left standing without jobs can afford to live.

I'm really hopeful that all Sama's talk about ASI / AGI is just salesspeak, because if it isn't we are potentially in for a very dystopic few years.

But then, it isn't in the top 0.1% interest to replace human workers and cause a hunger-fueled revolution either, I just don't have high hopes that they will care enough to try to prevent it.

He implied that Americans are not used walking places, no matter how short the distance.

I'm equally as confused; huge WTF moment. Seems like a paradigm breakthrough, in that Nobel Prizes can be given for discoveries in tangential fields. Or perhaps it's due to Dr. Hopfields physicist status, that all his discoveries are considered physics related? Or that NNs are considered a part of physics / nature?

This makes sense to some extent (terminal illness or such), but one can argue as someone did above that if you're willing to make the permanent decision to "destroy" yourself, are you sane enough to legally make decision? Are you for sure not under temporary delusion, distress, or other threat? You can always "legally" "destroy" yourself through suicide, but if you want to involve a medical professional it seems very reasonable that you have the mental clarity to make the decision.

Should it be illegal for the doctor to deny me an amputation that I ask for? After all, I should be "free to destroy myself" absent any justification?

Rough read.

It's hard for me to even imagine such a state of mind, and the suffering one experiences. Somehow the fact that the euthanization takes place in your own home gives me the creeps. I really wonder what drives people to work in this space? In the case of pets or animals being put down it's a vet that does the deed, is it doctors in this case?

Also, her therapist claiming that "There’s nothing more we can do for you. It’s never gonna get any better" sounds like an enormous red flag for me. Some authority should take a long hard look at a professional therapist speaking like that, especially considering the proximity/possibility of human euthanasia, or just suicide in general.

I was positive to euthanasia before this article (I had considered it primarily for terminally ill people and such), but this really turned me off. I can't believe we made suicide a legal depression cure before when there's been so much talk about shrooms/acid and such perhaps being helpful.

Honestly this is kind of a double edged sword. Allowing all drug use, and legalizing some form of registered and sanctioned trade of it might be better than what we have now, who knows. But at the same time, imagine large companies advertising drugs, targeted drug ads, the highly likely increased recreational consumption and normalization...

I don't think society is fit to handle practically unhindered drug use.

If Sam genuinely believed that AGI (assumption: capable of achieving some sort of singularity, or at least being capable enough to replace x% of human knowledge workers) would materialize in the near future, why would he then invest any time or money into these YC companies, given that most of them, if not all, would be made completely obsolete by such a technology?

Occam's razor would imply that he is simply encouraging future YC batches to build products on top of OAI products, with "AGI" being some sort of multi modal GPT.